Posted on 04/10/2006 11:15:15 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
A media company that produced a best-selling documentary asserting that Jesus Christ never existed today launches its "War on Easter," encouraging volunteer atheists to plant copies of the film "The God Who Wasn't There" in churches across the United States.
Dubbing the effort "Operation Easter Sanity," Brian Flemming, a self-described "former Christian fundamentalist" and president of Beyond Belief Media, hopes to covertly place 666 copies of the documentary in churches by Easter Sunday, April 16. The number 666 is the biblical mark of "The Beast," which also is the name of another film by Flemming set for a 06-06-06 release.
"People go to churches to hide from the truth," Flemming said in a statement. "At no time is this more apparent than Easter, when Christians get together to convince each other that a man died, stayed dead three days, rose from the dead and then flew into the air above the clouds.
"Our nonviolent campaign sends the message that nowhere in the country is safe from the truth. Wherever Christian leaders are indoctrinating children with 2,000-year-old fairy tales, the truth may just find its way there."
Continued the former Christian: "Our 'War on Easter' is of course completely without violence of any kind. Christians believe that beating a man to a pulp and nailing him to a cross somehow solves all the world's problems. Beyond Belief Media does not."
"The God Who Wasn't There" is currently No. 5 on Amazon.com's list of best-selling documentaries.
Fleming claims to have planted copies of the DVD at Our Lady of the Angels Catholic cathedral in Los Angeles Sunday morning.
"I put the DVDs in my right inside jacket pocket," he explained on the War on Easter website. "It was a gorgeous Palm Sunday. The kind of day that makes you want to ride on a donkey and get hit with palm fronds. …
"As soon as the Mass was over, I got to work hiding DVDs and flyers in hymnals and the like."
Fleming posted a photo of Cardinal Roger Mahony and himself allegedly taken after the Mass.
Responded "Eric" on the site: "Why do you feel the need to spread hate? Just because you are miserable doesn’t give you the right to lash out. Listen, you need some professional help. You remind me of Hitler and what he was trying to do. Are you proud of that?"
Another poster encouraged Flemming: "That is just awesome. Someday people will wake up, and I hope your crusade helps to do just that."
Is that entirely true?
Is it not the case that according to the sages those among the nations who adhere to the mitzvot of the brit Noach will have a place in the olam haba, while those who disobey them will not?
Surely that fact can be seen as salvational - there is a penalty associated with nonobservance and a reward associated with observance - just as in fundamentalist Protestantism there is a penalty associated with disbelief and a reward associated with belief.
They are therefore both salvational - the distinction is that one is statutory and the other is forensic.
Along the same lines the Catholic position - which is also salvational - is regenerative and neither forensic nor statutory.
BTW, I take no offense to your comments - I just think that by unnecessarily exaggerating certain polemical aspects of your case you derogate from the essence of your message - that the Hebrew Scriptures are inerrant. Which of course they are.
The bible disagrees with you, for as Jesus himself said:
John 15:18
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you
Sorry, but those are just words on paper and a simplistic view of the motivations of others. Plus, it has the added benefit of reinforcing one's latent persecution complex.
The World hates Jesus, for as the bible says "men love darkness rather than light, for their deeds are evil." (John 3:19). The World has always hated Jesus, and his followers. This new hatred is nothing new. These are not "just "words on paper"; it is scriptural truth.
Please clarify: are you simultaneously claiming to be a Catholic and claiming that the teaching of Christ recorded in John's Gospel are "just words on paper"?
Such claims are mutually insupportable.
I can be Catholic and not be a Biblical literalist.
That's a disingenuous dodge.
This is not about literalism concerning a creation narrative or a prophetic discourse: we are talking about the plain words of Christ in a direct discourse to his disciples.
One cannot be Catholic and claim that the crucifixion was not an historical event but merely an allegory. Likewise one cannot claim that an unambiguous statement of Christ in a direct discourse (i.e. not a parable) is "just words on paper" and be a Catholic.
Moreover, no Catholic can claim that any part of the Scriptures are just words on paper, since the Church teaches that the Scriptures in their entirety are the revealed Word of God and are therefore to be received with the utmost reverence.
No we're not. We're talking about copies of copies of copies of copies of what were purported to be the plain words of JC.
I'm reading Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman, which is a fascinating look at the New Testament. Pick it up; you'll see what I'm talking about.
Here you reject the Catholic faith both explicitly and implicitly.
First, by saying that the Scripture does not believably contain the authentic words of Christ you are denying that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit - you are saying that the Church has failed to preserve Scripture. Additionally, you are therefore saying that the Church promulgates false editions of the Scripture as true - which means you deny the indefectibility of the Church. In other words you explicitly maintain two clear heresies.
Implicitly, by referring to the Risen Lord (on the day before Holy Thursday yet) so flippantly as "JC" you imply that you do not believe that Jesus was divine - if you truly believed Him to be Lord and God you would not speak of Him that way.
I'm reading Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman, which is a fascinating look at the New Testament.
Your citation of Ehrman as an authority for your views is corroborative: Ehrman explictly denies the divinity of Jesus Christ and his stated goal in his writings is to dissuade others from belief in Jesus' divinity.
He does this in a specious way by writing a shallow, "popular" paperback which he fraudulently represents as a scholarly work by using his academic training as "proof" of the book's scientific value.
The reality, of course, is that Misquoting Jesus is the very antithesis of a scholarly work: it is a polemic in which Ehrman carefully selects a tiny range of data points which, when all other data points are conveniently excluded, he uses to build up an extremely weak case against the reliability of Scripture.
Ehrman is to textual criticism what Noam Chomsky is to political science: a degreed hack promoted by leftists because he is able to write short, easy-to-understand propagandistic screeds that reassure leftists in their comfortable thoughts.
Pick it up; you'll see what I'm talking about.
I've read this silly book, thanks.
What the book is, quite unintentionally, is Ehrman's own account of how he was confronted by the uncompromising moral demands of Christ the Lord, how he came up short and how he set about justifying his failure through tendentious misuse of his textual training. Ehrman has now set himself up as a tinpot authority judging Christ and his Church by his own personal desires and feelings.
An actual Catholic would find his posturing painfully transparent.
You are, apparently, enthralled by Ehrman's dog-and-pony show.
In future, Junior, please tell the truth: that you are not actually a Catholic - you are an unbeliever who retains some cultural trappings of Catholicism while denying the Church's central doctrines.
If someone chooses to be a atheist, that's his right. If he wants to talk about why he's a atheist, or why he feels that atheism is right, that's his perogative. However, I don't understand why some aggressively try to proselytize atheism. With religious people, it's easy to understand. After all, they belive they're saving souls, helping them get to heaven. Atheists, however, don't believe in God or heaven...so why bother?
Did you take the little quiz he had a link to? It clearly makes it plain that he considers Christians much more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.